Consequences of Ignoring DEI Initiatives

Recently, I've been reflecting on the troubling trend of companies removing 'equity' from their DEI initiatives, a move now endorsed by the SHRM. This shift is particularly harmful to the disability community. Equity ensures that everyone has what they need to succeed. For disabled employees, this might mean accessible workplaces, assistive technology, or flexible work arrangements. SHRM's decision to drop 'equity' from its strategy undermines these critical supports. The Wall Street Journal's Ray Smith reports the organization is "moving away from equity language to ensure no group of workers appears to get preferential treatment." However, this perspective ignores the unique barriers faced by the disability community and other marginalized groups. Removing equity from DEI efforts sends a concerning message: that the specific needs of marginalized groups are less important. This is not just a theoretical issue; it's a tangible setback. A recent piece by Bloomberg's Khorri A. Atkinson explored the impact on colleges and universities that have already begun eliminating hundreds of DEI-related jobs, impacting support for historically marginalized students. In the workplace, this trend could mean fewer accommodations and less understanding of the unique challenges faced by disabled employees. Moving through the world with various disabilities, I’ve experienced firsthand the difference that equitable policies make. Equity isn't about giving some people an unfair advantage; it's about leveling the playing field. Without it, disabled employees like myself are left at a significant disadvantage. We need to recognize that inclusion without equity is incomplete. Equity should be uncontroversial. It just means equality of opportunity. “Who are the people that find 'equity' confusing?" Deb Muller, the CEO of HR Acuity, told Axios’s Emily Peck. This is why the removal of 'equity' is so alarming—it risks undoing years of progress and harms those who rely on these measures the most. I urge my fellow advocates and allies to speak out against this shift. It's crucial that we maintain a holistic approach to DEI that includes equity. We need to push for policies that recognize and address the diverse needs of all employees. What are your thoughts on SHRM's decision to drop 'equity' from their DEI strategy? How do you think this will impact the disability community and other marginalized groups? #DisabilityAdvocacy #InclusionMatters #EquityInDEI #DEI #Accessibility #DiversityAndInclusion #EquityForAll #DisabilityRights #DisabilityPrideMonth #InclusiveWorkplaces #Advocacy

Disclaimer: ChatGPT drafted this post from my stream of consciousness, voice-to-text rant. Because even non-AGI AI gets this. 🤦♀️ ————— The rollback of DEI is being framed as a return to “merit.” Because, obviously, the most qualified people for every leadership role just happen to share the same background, go to the same schools, and think the same way. Total coincidence. But let’s talk about what actually happens when diversity gets cut: 1. Marketing gets weird. Without diverse voices in the room, we end up with men designing tampon ads and billion-dollar brands launching “feminine” pens like we’ve all been struggling with regular ones. 2. Product design flops. Crash test dummies based only on men’s bodies? AI that fails on non-white faces? Voice assistants that ignore anyone with an accent? Turns out, designing for everyone requires… including everyone. 3. Strategy gets shortsighted. If your leadership team all shares the same perspective, congratulations—you’ve created an echo chamber. Fantastic for avoiding conflict, terrible for spotting blind spots. 4. PR disasters multiply. Every time a company releases a tone-deaf ad or a culturally clueless product, a more diverse team somewhere is saying, We could have told you that. But sure, let’s call it “merit” instead of listening. 5. Business gets less competitive. Companies that embrace diversity aren’t just being nice—they’re outperforming the ones that don’t. Like you know, Costco. Diverse teams make better decisions, reach broader markets, and (wild concept) understand more customers. 6. Innovation slows down. When everyone in the room thinks the same way, guess what? They also miss the same opportunities. You can’t break new ground when your entire team has the same map. So if the goal is actually excellence, then cutting diversity efforts doesn’t get you there. It just makes sure the same handful of people stay comfortable while everyone else works twice as hard to be “qualified.” If you want real merit, start by making sure you’re not just hiring people who remind you of yourself.

Target’s sales slump is a masterclass in why brand values matter. We talk a lot about brand values, but Target just gave us a real-world case study on what happens when a brand abandons them. Earlier this year, Target quietly rolled back its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Programs that supported supplier diversity and increased workplace representation. The result? A 40-day consumer boycott, six straight weeks of declining foot traffic, and a lawsuit from Florida’s attorney general. Meanwhile, Costco—where DEI efforts remained untouched—saw foot traffic increase in the same period. DEI isn’t a marketing strategy; it’s about fairness, dignity, and doing the right thing. When companies genuinely commit to diversity and equity, they create workplaces where everyone belongs, drive positive societal change, and—yes—build stronger, more resilient brands. Here’s what this tells us about marketing and brand strategy: 🔹 Values drive loyalty. Target built a reputation for inclusivity, and its reversal is a betrayal to many customers. 🔹 Ethics and business aren’t separate. When companies prioritize fairness and inclusion, they cultivate trust—and trust drives long-term success. 🔹 Brands should focus on their buying audience, not political pressure. The people walking into your stores or adding to their online carts should matter more than appeasing political influences. When businesses make reactionary decisions to avoid controversy, they risk alienating the very customers keeping them in business. How could Target not have realized the backlash they would receive – from the public, from their employees, and from the media? These type of decisions aren't made lightly. PR, comms, marketing, corporate responsibility, probably all expressed their concern with moving in this direction, but ultimately, stronger internal and external pressures determined the course of action. https://lnkd.in/eMWMmGqB

📉 What if DEI rollbacks are quietly destroying trust? I found Catalyst’s new report, Risks of Retreat, both validating and troubling. What stood out most wasn’t just the four risks (talent, financial, legal, and reputational). It was the growing gap between how leaders and employees perceive what’s really happening. For example: ➡️ 78% of C-suite and 83% of legal leaders say they’re simply rebranding DEI as “culture,” “fairness,” or “belonging.” ➡️ Two in three believe inclusion is fully embedded into daily operations. ❌ But employees see it differently. Many believe DEI is fading, or was never fully there to begin with. This isn’t just about DEI. It’s about trust. And according to many measures, trust is at an all-time low in the workplace. This gap between intention and perception isn’t just a surface-level disconnect. It signals something deeper, something below the surface. What if the real business case for inclusion is trust? What if honoring what employees actually want is the strategy? And what if these shifts are already backfiring, but we’re only beginning to see the consequences? 🗣 What are you seeing? Are changes in language and strategy impacting trust where you work? 🔗 See the link to the full report in the comments.

Consumers are raising their expectations around corporate social responsibility, demanding sustained action over isolated gestures. And as brands pull back or quiet their DEI initiatives, their audiences are paying close attention. → 53% of Americans feel disappointed when brands stay silent on social issues (Givsly) → 40% of Gen Z has stopped purchasing from brands that reversed their DEI efforts (The Harris Poll) “Very few brands can afford to alienate their target customers. Younger consumers, in particular, are very aware of the choices they have, and of the power they have to act with their dollars," said EMARKETER principal analyst Sky Canaves. The consequences of superficial or abandoned DEI initiatives are already evident. Consumers are boycotting Target, but they're also calling out retailers like Levi's for quietly launching Pride merch without explaining its significance to shoppers or integrating it into a broader strategy. For brands contemplating how to navigate this place, intentionality and long-term commitment is more important than ever, said our analyst Paola Flores-Marquez. “Going back on a stance is worse than not taking a stance. All you’ve done is alienate your supporters without courting the other side that is never going to support you.” Read more: https://lnkd.in/g4Vmk2t6

I remember visiting Meta’s NYC office in 2019, two years into our work at HBCU 20x20 | The Application and being excited to be in a space where so many decisions were made and to discuss entering into a partnership. The young millennial in me loved their carefully curated spaces, but beyond the initial excitement, I quickly realized they had significant gaps in authentically engaging diverse communities. So, when I heard about their recent decision to scale back DEI initiatives and trainings, I wasn’t entirely surprised. Meta’s DEI efforts were never just symbolic to me. They represented tangible strategies aimed at diversifying one of the world’s most influential tech companies, creating ripple effects across the industry. I truly believed they wanted to do better because of the people driving those efforts — and that commitment would inspire other companies to follow suit. For a while, I even considered them the gold standard, especially after Google’s missteps. This decision, however, is not just another corporate shift. It’s a direct challenge to the progress we’ve worked so hard to achieve in building equitable opportunities for underrepresented communities, including Black and Brown professionals and HBCU graduates. Let’s be clear: diversity isn’t just good for society — it’s essential for business. Research consistently shows that diverse teams outperform homogenous ones. They foster innovation, make better decisions, and deliver stronger financial results. HBCU graduates, with their resilience, adaptability, and creativity, are integral to this equation. For years, DEI programs have opened doors that were once firmly shut. Now, those doors are at risk of closing again. When companies like Meta deprioritize DEI, they not only jeopardize progress but also limit their own potential. Fewer diverse voices mean fewer perspectives in product development, marketing, and problem-solving. For a global company like Meta, whose products touch billions, this creates blind spots and missed opportunities. Meta’s decision may slow progress, but it won’t stop it. You can read some more of my thoughts on my website too: https://lnkd.in/enEZMkkn We all deserve an equitable workforce and society. #Meta #Facebook #Instagram #Threads #Diversity #DEI

“We had to change some language on our website,” explained a CMO at a $750 million tech company, “to address the lightning rod issues.” Righteous Drew wanted to push back and say, “If every company does this, aren’t we all being complicit?” Coach Drew held his tongue. There’s a lot at stake right now, and not just for businesses with government contracts. Enough with the code, what’s the real issue here? One word: Trust. Every established brand is a promise. That promise combines both its words and actions over time. A brand that promises to be a good corporate citizen and demonstrates its commitment via actions earns goodwill with multiple stakeholders, including employees, customers, prospects, partners, and influencers. A sudden shift in actions (like dropping DEI or ESG programs) can break that goodwill and or diminish trust. Get real, Righteous Drew. Aren’t the risks of non-compliance with the new political correctness too great to stand on one’s high horse? Indeed, much of the S&P 500 thinks so. The New York Times reported last week that the language “diversity, equity and inclusion” has been scrubbed from 200 of the 350 S&P 500 companies that had mentioned it. According to the NYTimes, many felt obligated to do so based on “an executive order that instructed federal agencies to investigate ‘illegal D.E.I.’ in the private sector.” It’s even more serious for companies or institutions dependent upon government or red-state contracts. If they want to keep these contracts or get new ones, they must scrub their websites of the 30 or so trigger words, such as diversity, equity, inclusion, and climate change. We’re talking about millions of dollars and thousands of jobs. Aren’t most of these big companies just using different words? Yes, some are. These companies are softening or replacing words like “equity” with “belonging” or “inclusiveness” with “fairness.” In these cases, the policies, programs, and staffing behind the words aren’t changing. Coach Drew approves. Other companies, big and small, have not just abandoned the words; they’ve eliminated the programs. Now we’re in reputational damage territory. Certain stakeholders will wonder if they can ever trust the company again. Righteous Drew is fretting. Costco decided not to change its DEI policies, while Walmart did. Both brands have a lot at stake. Thus far in 2025, CostCo’s stock is down 2%, while Walmart’s is down 6%. It's too early to measure the impact (if any) these changes will have on revenue, employee retention, etc., but it will be fascinating to watch them play out. Righteous Drew thanks Costco for its bravery. Bottom line: This decision to change your corporate policies is way bigger than marketing. C-Suites and investors need to be part of the conversation. For a guide on how marketers can help guide these conversations, see the link to my post on RenegadeMarketing.com in a comment below. [Ping me: I’d love to hear how your company is responding to all of this]

Walmart’s recent decision to scale back its DEI initiatives is both disappointing and infuriating. I’ve avoided Walmart for a long time, and this only reinforces my stance. The company has announced plans to cease considering race and gender in supplier contracts, end racial equity training, and withdraw from the Human Rights Campaign’s workplace rankings. These changes come in response to pressure from conservative activists threatening boycotts. It’s infuriating to see a corporation of Walmart’s magnitude fold under this pressure, especially when DEI efforts are crucial for fostering inclusive workplaces and communities. This not only undermines the progress made in promoting diversity but also sends a troubling message about the company’s commitment to equity. While Walmart claims to continue fostering a sense of belonging and opening doors to opportunities for all, actions speak louder than words. Scaling back DEI initiatives suggests a prioritization of appeasing certain groups over genuinely supporting marginalized communities. As consumers and advocates, it’s imperative to support businesses that prioritize genuine inclusivity and equity. Walmart’s recent actions serve as a reminder to critically evaluate where we spend our money and which companies align with our values.